This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

Re: Income Inequality

Originally Posted by tuhaybey

You just don't seem to be familiar with economics. You're missing many of the most basic concepts of capitalism completely. I explained it the best I can and that didn't seem to help, so I don't know what else I can do. Maybe you ought to just take an evening class or something?

Re: Income Inequality

Yeah in the 1930's the rich said that nothing should be done either. Remember how that turned out? History repeats itself and if you pay close enough attention you will realize what went wrong.

It was the uber-rich that crashed the market, kept the depression artifically going, and pushed The New Deal - which of course was a terrible deal for Americans. It was the long-term death sentence that is now looming over us.

As always, and in all ways - the uber-rich are always maneuvering to gain control of and then expand government. Social programs are sold to the masses as help for the little guy, but as always it is nothing more than a trap that brings the little guy under the control of the government, and since the government is under the control of the Establishment rich, it brings the little guy under the control of the wealthy Establishment - your hated 1%'ers.

Bernard Baruch was FDR's attack dog in the NRA - Baruch was a lacky for JP Morgan, Rockefeller, the Schiffs, etc; he killed millions of jobs, and destroyed many companies for the benefit of his Money Trust handlers. To give the appearance of "helping the little guy", he'd give speeches at a favored company who was benefitting from government protection and Establishment money, and talk about how life was so great for the union workers at the company. Yes, those few workers benefitted, and to be sure the Establishment elite benefitted greatly - but the vast majority of the country was savaged.

How it is that you leftists can never see how you are manipulated to do the heavy lifting for the Establishment elite - to the detriment of the majority, and at the cost of liberty - is beyond me. You have blinders on - the communists refer to you as "useful idiots".

as more and more automation, and computers control the labor of the planet, productivity of course rises

and wages for those who work on those machines, programming them, fixing them, building them, also rise

but the non skilled wages...no they arent rising, nor will they

too many competing for the same cashier job, because that is all they can do (so why should a company pay them more than the job is worth?)

skills pay the bills......remember it.....it isnt going to change

nothing you can say, or do that will change that fact

so the best thing we can do, is to provide a chance for people to improve themselves.....educations, trade schools, etc

those opportunities are out there......but the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink applies

they have to WANT to improve, and they have to make the effort to do whatever it takes to make it happen

You again seem to be having trouble distinguishing personal narrative from statistics. As an individual, it makes sense to get some marketable job skills. From a top down perspective, it really doesn't matter if we are going to have 10 or 12% unemployment. If every single American worker retrained, and chose a good, future oriented, needed craft, we still could not provide full employment. We would just have a better trained unemployed segment of the workforce.

Much of the recent growth in productivity has come because a software application can replace 10, 30, or 100 workers. Indeed, there wouldn't be much point in buying the technology, if you had to turn around and replace 100 low skilled workers with 100 IT professionals. Under our current system, those displaced are tending to drop into lower paying service jobs, or unemployment, where they do not have as much income to buy the fruits of the new production. This is the essential problem. Yes, there are new positions opening up in evolving technology, but the numbers required are much, much smaller than in the past.

Re: Income Inequality

Originally Posted by Ganesh

You again seem to be having trouble distinguishing personal narrative from statistics. As an individual, it makes sense to get some marketable job skills. From a top down perspective, it really doesn't matter if we are going to have 10 or 12% unemployment. If every single American worker retrained, and chose a good, future oriented, needed craft, we still could not provide full employment. We would just have a better trained unemployed segment of the workforce.

Much of the recent growth in productivity has come because a software application can replace 10, 30, or 100 workers. Indeed, there wouldn't be much point in buying the technology, if you had to turn around and replace 100 low skilled workers with 100 IT professionals. Under our current system, those displaced are tending to drop into lower paying service jobs, or unemployment, where they do not have as much income to buy the fruits of the new production. This is the essential problem. Yes, there are new positions opening up in evolving technology, but the numbers required are much, much smaller than in the past.

so you believe that even if everyone had skills, we would still be where we are

au contraire....let me explain why....

why is the number one reason why people start their own businesses?

this article explains it.....

Nothing beats the freedom of being the boss — at least when it comes to the entrepreneurial efforts of small business owners.

New research from Cox Business has found that more than half of small business owners start their own business in order to be their own boss. The researchers found that people were also motivated by the idea of creating something from the ground up. Overall, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had started their own business for one of those reasons.

Money, on the other hand, is not a motivating factor for many small business owners: Just 8 percent of respondents said that was their main motivation for starting their own business.

Re: Income Inequality

so you believe that even if everyone had skills, we would still be where we are

au contraire....let me explain why....

why is the number one reason why people start their own businesses?

this article explains it.....

Nothing beats the freedom of being the boss — at least when it comes to the entrepreneurial efforts of small business owners.

New research from Cox Business has found that more than half of small business owners start their own business in order to be their own boss. The researchers found that people were also motivated by the idea of creating something from the ground up. Overall, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had started their own business for one of those reasons.

Money, on the other hand, is not a motivating factor for many small business owners: Just 8 percent of respondents said that was their main motivation for starting their own business.

they want to be their own boss.....and when you HAVE skills, you have a chance

without skills, you have zero chance

people get laid off all the time....some start working for themselves....out of need, and desire

they wouldnt do that without the prerequisite skills.....

so new businesses would start up....maybe a few new innovations would pop up.....

it may not fix everything, but i know we would be better off than we are now.....

To successfully run a small business, one needs a market for their service or product. If all those newly unemployed now open some sort of business, not because it fits with a researched business plan, but because the are unemployed and need an income, they will simply be flooding the market with whatever they intent to flog. Opening a business does not necessarily mean there will be customers, and it does not mean that suddenly there is extra wealth in the country.

If there are three coffee shops in a given area, and now there are five, as those laid off GM workers still need an income, then the pie is divided five ways instead of three, all things being equal. And in fact, what you can often have is not even that, but turmoil and dislocation. Many small businesses operate at a low margin, and can only stand so much drop in income. You may end up with none for a while as all go broke, and lose start-up or other costs.

There is a difference from looking at economic prospects from an individual perspective, and from an overall perspective.

Re: Income Inequality

Originally Posted by tuhaybey

You just don't seem to be familiar with economics. You're missing many of the most basic concepts of capitalism completely. I explained it the best I can and that didn't seem to help, so I don't know what else I can do. Maybe you ought to just take an evening class or something?

I am very familiar with making a profit. You stated yourself, I quote, "That isn't supposed to be possible in a capitalist economy if things work like the models, but it is happening and has been for like 30 years now." The problem is the models are wrong and all the comments you've made on this subject prove it.

I said before you never owned a business or managed one and that was based on your comments. You say I am missing what you are saying, your damn right I am as I would never run a business using your model. The business model I like is the one that produces massive profit, so that I can take that profit and leverage it to make yet bigger and more massive profit. And one other thing I like expensive toys, that only a very profitable business can offer.

Re: Income Inequality

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

First, I'm not wrong.
Second, no Obama is not a "pet of mine". That's absurd.Third, the border fence is an expensive boondoggle that will never work.Fourth, the Republicans had control of the WH and both houses, and did squat to end illegal immigration back during the Bush Administration.
Fifth, it was the arch conservative, Ronald Reagan, who actually signed amnesty into law.

Weather you think it will work or not is not the point. You claimed the Pubs never did anything about our border and I proved you wrong. In fact your are wrong most every time. And you continue your ignorance with the statement in bold. I repeat again

Senate Passes Bill on Building Border Fence

Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints

By CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: September 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Senate on Friday approved the building of 700 miles of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.

House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.

But hey go stand by your man Obama and the rest of the dems with their open border policy and amnesty. You have demonstrated in the past your idea of closing the border is an I-9 form. That is no different than saying come alllllllllll in.

Re: Income Inequality

Originally Posted by Born Free

Weather you think it will work or not is not the point. You claimed the Pubs never did anything about our border and I proved you wrong. In fact your are wrong most every time. And you continue your ignorance with the statement in bold. I repeat again

Senate Passes Bill on Building Border Fence

Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints

By CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: September 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Senate on Friday approved the building of 700 miles of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.

House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.

But hey go stand by your man Obama and the rest of the dems with their open border policy and amnesty. You have demonstrated in the past your idea of closing the border is an I-9 form. That is no different than saying come alllllllllll in.

The only reason that anyone wants to tout a border fence is to fool the public into thinking that they're really serious about ending illegal immigration. They have taken in some people, no doubt, but the fact is that the fence idea is simply a proposal for an expensive boondoggle, coming, interestingly enough from the same people who purport to be in favor of fiscal responsibility.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking